Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
>>You can get RNA from a LIVING creature?
But evidently not in the laboratory... no matter how hard they pray to the STEM gods!
>>not in the laboratory
not FROM NONLIVING ELEMENTS in the laboratory
[[What did THEY ‘evolve’ from?]]
Or into lol-
Sorry,my contention is still-——>> Were there no matter, there would be no time...
it’s mind over matter- if you don’t mind it don’t matter
>>Sorry,my contention is still
Matter did not exist before the formation of light nuclei, but Time still passed.
“1 second - 3 minutes - Formation of light nuclei”
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/cosmology/early_universe
>>Were there no matter, there would be no time...
Anyhow, the point is moot since we’re living in a universe where E=mc2, and T progresses relative to E in the inertial frame(s) in which is it observed.
What happens to T as E increases and approaches infinity?
But even you don't claim it's a reasonable demand, because you well know it's not.
"Mathematical modeling" might be appropriate & doable in some cases (rocket science comes to mind) but not in Darwin's basic evolution theory, at least so far as I've ever heard.
usconservative: "Now, does evolution happen?
YES. It does.
We need only look at our own feet and see how our little toes have been shrinking over time."
So, even you acknowledge our toes may once have been longer and more useful for climbing in trees, right?
A little like some other primates we might mention, right?
usconservative: "What evolutionists claim is that we (mankind) crawled out of the sea one day and we evolved from that.
That's impossible.
There are zero documented and scientifically proven of cases where one species evolved into another.
It just didn't happen."
But of course there are, and wolves to dogs are just one example -- dogs are a new species evolved from wolves in a very short time period because of human interventions.
Natural selection normally would take much longer.
And there are many examples in nature -- consider zebras which have several breeds, sub-species and species some of which do not normally interbreed.
African & Indian elephants are even further separated to the point where they physically cannot interbreed, making them separate genera in the elephant family.
As for what first crawled out on land some 400+ million years ago, the fossil record does show changes over many millions of years eventually producing mammal-like creatures, some of whom seemed to live in trees.
So science naturally connects the dots, but you may wish not to, and that's your right so long as you don't claim your own beliefs are scientific.
usconservative: "How amongst the hundreds of billions and billions and billions (etc.. etc.. etc..) of combinations of possibilities in the universe did it all come together at just the right moment in time for the genetics of mankind to come together?
My point in asking the question of my friends who missed it (as you did) is that it's impossible to calculate."
So you admit your demand was impossible?
Fine.
And yet it happened, so such mathematical models are unnecessary, especially if, as I believe, it happened because God intended it.
usconservative: "If it's impossible to calculate, how can science, which relies heavily on data including math, determine we "evolved" from some goo that crawled out of the ocean?"
So the root of your problem is you don't understand science.
In strict scientific terms Darwin's basic evolution idea is a confirmed hypothesis, making it a theory.
Descent with modifications and natural selection are observed facts, while speculations regarding origins of life are still just that -- speculations, not fact, not theory, not even testable hypotheses for the most part.
Yes, some of those ideas are very interesting, but nobody is required to believe a word of it.
usconservative: "There has to be an intelligence behind the creation of mankind and all that we see.
Of that there is no doubt in my mind.
There is no other explanation that makes sense in any way to me."
Agreed, but there is no possible way for us to say where God's natural laws were perfectly adequate to produce what we see today, and where they instead required His supernatural interventions to make them happen.
I think most of what we see He accomplished naturally, but am willing to consider if His creations were not fully adequate to accomplish some of His purposes.
But after due consideration, I'd mostly reject that possibility.
It's basic evolution theory based on observed descent with modifications and natural selection.
Elsie: "Most such are harmless or harmful, but a small number helpful in natural DE-selection."
Just remember, if you are an animal on the plains of Africa, you don't need to be the fastest animal around, you only need to be faster than your slowest prey or herd-mate.
That's natural selection, or de-selection, depending on your point of view.
There again for the benefit of those who claim "no transitional forms".
Yes, sadly, it often demonstrates that people can look the facts straight in the face (in this case literally) and not see them.
Does that include Elsie?
I moved no posts, goal or otherwise.
My opinions here go by the name "theistic evolutionism" meaning I believe God intended and made whatever we see, even where natural explanations seem adequate.
That's because "nature's laws" are God's laws, imho.
You disagree?
Some of "the because" are explanations which can never be observed and are therefore classified as theory, not fact.
As confirmed theory, basic evolution is far beyond mere postulation or unconfirmed hypotheses, though many of those do exist in the scientific realm which includes evolution.
For example, speculations regarding origins of life fall into such categories as "postulate", "hypothesis" and S.W.A.G. -- scientific wild *ssed guess.
But your original question was for evidence of environmental changes, and I merely observed that every level of geological strata tells us something different was going on at that time, and careful examinations can tell us much about what those changes were.
You disagree?
Take your time.
Elsie: "Giant shrimp and military intelligence come to mind. "
Brilliant! Just brilliant!
Elsie: "assumptions... "
Yes, the fewer words, the better. That's the ticket!
Elsie: "predictions,
OOOoooh! I want to know some of these!"
Start here.
But there is much more.
Elsie: "Why are they called 'transitional' when NO transition has been seen?
"E" puts similar things together and then BOLDLY asserts that one CAME from the other."
No. The exact relationships are unknown, except that some came before others and are therefore likely candidates for transitional ancestors.
What's certain is that forms themselves did change over time.
Occam's razor "de-selects" ideas that seem unnecessarily complicated.
Hence, transitional forms.
Elsie: "I think I've discovered the problem in this thread..."
I'd say it's your witticisms are less than.
Elsie: "An appeal to authority. Whoda thunk..."
No "appeal", simple recognition.
Elsie, of course, appeals to no authority but your own, right?
Thanks for admitting this...
Evolution: Mike, the headless chicken. Friuta, CO
Nothing to "admit".
The similarities & time-line tell us they must be closely related and transitioning from more ape-like to more human-like.
But except with Neanderthals, there's no data to tell us exactly how closely or distantly related they were.
Neanderthal DNA tells us they were not a separate species, but rather a sub-species of humans who did, on occasion, interbreed with our human ancestors.
>>the root of your problem is you don’t understand science.
Lol. That’s like the pretentious pot (who can’t articulate an understanding for why the abiogenesis of RNA/DNA is of substantial practical importance to the thread subject) calling the kettle black.
>>I believe God intended and made whatever we see
So God made the abomination of Nature we see in Romans chapter 1, did He?
MUST be?
really??
Neanderthal DNA tells us they were not a separate species, but rather a sub-species of humans who did, on occasion, interbreed with our human ancestors.
And this answer does not satisfy you because of what, exactly?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.